Have you ever found a website, and been initially impressed with your first encounter, only to find that other pages and articles reveal the authors to be raging heretics?

This has happened to me many times, not only on the Internet, but even with authors, and radio, and TV personalities.

Sometimes it’s not so much what they say but who they hang out with, although I’ve usually found that if a person hangs around bad company, it is only a matter of time before they begin to say the same things.

With me it is usually because I am always looking for answers about the Scriptures. Politics, and hobbies take a back seat to my studies in the Word of God. When I come across something that stumps me I often find myself going to the web to see what others are saying. I know! I should pray first. I usually end up praying, especially when I come close to getting sucked in to things that could be dangerous.

This week I came across an article that states that the New Testament must have been written in Hebrew before it was ever written in Greek. I had heard of this idea before, but had never taken a serious look at it, but now I had to dig into the Scriptures to find out the truth.

It turns out that this idea, like all heresies, may sound pious and sincere on the surface, but in fact is a subtle attack against the character of God!

Don’t get me wrong. I love the Hebrew language, and have made several attempts to learn it over the last couple of years, and though I find it difficult, I am still studying it. (I am currently using Pimsleur’s “Quick and Easy Method” and I think it may actually work)

The problem with this idea is there is no evidence for it. There are no ancient manuscripts of the New Testament in Hebrew. Zero!

What these people are saying is that God inspired the New Testament in Hebrew, and was not able to preserve it in that language! Now it is up to some Hebrew scholars to restore the original Hebrew text. God can’t do it Himself and He needs these “scholars” to do it for Him!

For someone to say something like that, it betrays a very low view of God. You really can’t say that and believe in the all-powerful God of the bible!

Where is the “original” New Testament Hebrew text? If it was originally Hebrew, and not a single copy exists on earth, then God was not capable of preserving it. Such a God is weak, and does not match the characteristics of the God of my bible. Nor does such a God deserve worship!

The truth is that the New Testament was originally written in Greek. The working language of the Jews of Galilee was Greek, though there is evidence that Jesus and the disciples were indeed bilingual. The New Testament was written to be spread to as many people as possible, and thus the common language of the day, Greek, was used, though the Jewishness, and Jewish mindset of the authors is evident throughout.

The first place we need to look is in the New Testament itself. In the very first chapter of the New Testament we have evidence that the language it was written in was not Hebrew;

Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. Matthew 1:23

Look at the word “interpreted”. This word is in all the texts, and refers to the Hebrew word Emmanuel. If the language Matthew was Hebrew he would not need to state that Emmanuel means “God with us”. That meaning is apparent to a Hebrew reader, but not to a Greek.

There are several other places where this term is used, and each case it provides evidence that the original language was not Hebrew, or Aramaic;

And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi; which is, being interpreted, Damsel, I say unto thee, arise. Mark 5:41

And they bring him unto the place Golgotha, which is, being interpreted, The place of a skull. Mark 15:22

Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? John 1:38

He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. John 1:41

And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, Acts 4:36

In John 5:2 it is noted that the name Bethesda is a Hebrew name. If the original language had been Hebrew there would have been no need to note that its name was Hebrew.

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches. John 5:2

When Pilate was examining Jesus, shortly before the crucifixion, it was noted that the place called the Pavement, had a different name in Hebrew. Again it is very obvious that the original language was not Hebrew.

When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha. John 19:13

The sign which Pilate had placed on Jesus’ cross was trilingual, indicating that there were three common languages being used in the area at the time.

This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin. John 19:20

Paul spoke in Hebrew at times. It is noted because this was not the language he normally spoke in. As a Pharisee Paul would have studied Hebrew, and to this group he spoke in it because it gave him more authority than using Greek would have at that time. He used Hebrew because it got their attention;

And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying, Acts 21:40

(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,) Acts 22:2

Paul also shows in his testimony of his encounter with Jesus that the language he was speaking in was not Hebrew;

And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks. Acts 26:14

Jesus, here, was using Hebrew to speak to a Pharisee, because it got his attention, the same tactic Paul had used later in Acts 21 & 22.

When the disciples began to speak in tongues, in the book of Acts, pay close attention to where the listeners were from.

7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilæans? 8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. Acts 2:7-11

The passage indicates that the Galilæans spoke a different language than those from Judaea. If the language of the apostles was the same as the language of those from Judea there would be no need to note their presence there. The Judeans could understand the apostles just as well as the others in attendance. The language of Judea was Aramaic, a sister language to Hebrew. Thus we have another indication that the everyday language of the apostles was not Hebrew, nor Aramaic.

What else does the bible have to say on this issue? Psalm 12 has something very important to say;

6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:6-7

The use of the word “pure” does not mean that God must speak in Hebrew. Even parts of the Old Testament were written in Aramaic. No, it means the meaning of God’s words is pure, regardless of the language used, and it means that God will sovereignly preserve His word from the generation in which it was written, throughout all eternity.

So what can we say about the fact that there are no Hebrew manuscripts of the New Testament? We can know that it was not originally written in Hebrew, and God has divinely preserved it as He said He would.

There are over 5,000 manuscripts which are in unanimous agreement (I think the total may actually be over 6,000 by now), and even the 250 doctored manuscripts are mostly in agreement. Some of the earliest manuscripts actually date back to the second century AD. If you are using a bible based on the Greek Textus Receptus, like the Authorized, or King James version, you can be certain that you have a bible that is a faithful representation of the original.

What of the Jewish idioms used in the New Testament? Does this mean that it was originally written in Hebrew? No. The authors were Jews, and thought as Jews even though they wrote in Greek. Logically then, their Jewishness was incorporated in the Greek text. It does not mean that the text was Hebrew.

The people who promote this heresy often go to the extent that they say the only legitimate name of God is the Hebrew יהוה (Yahweh or Yehovah). This begs the question “did God leave Himself without a witness in the Gentile world?”

When the early Christian missionaries went to the Germanic peoples they found that the being known as “God” had the same characteristics as theיהוה (Yahweh or Yehovah) of the bible.

When the early Christian missionaries went to the Czech people they found that there was a God known as “Boha”, and the characteristics of Boha were exactly the same as the characteristics of יהוה of the Tanakh.

What is the word used for יהוה in the Septuagint (LXX) or other early Greek translations of the Tanakh? Here is what Wikipedia says about it “The Greek word Kyrios (κύριος) means “lord, Lord, master“. In religious usage it designates God. It is used in both the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible and the Greek New Testament.”

The conclusion that I have come to is that Kyrios (κύριος) is the same being, the same God, as יהוה . The Jewish translators of the Septuagint also believed this, so I am in good company. It is the same today; the Arabic translations of the bible use “Allah” as the name for God, but the “Allah” of the Qur’an is a different “Allah” than the Allah of the bible. The name is the same but the characteristics are different, and thus it is a different God.

I started by saying I had been disappointed by a seemingly good website. I had found one that had much of the same information I had come across on my own, and even some more, but as I searched the site, I found that they are a little anti-semitic. I won’t encourage anyone to visit anti-semitic sites, regardless of how good they are in other areas, and for this reason I won’t pass on their URL. Another site had some good information on some subjects, but then presented the heresy addressed above. Check out the references above and you will see that I have not taken anything out of context. If I have please let me know.

6 Responses to Was the New Testament originally written in Hebrew?

Brother Dan, I scanned this article for the first time today and learned something in it that seriously impressed me!!! It is the description of your efforts to try and learn how to work with Biblical Hebrew in your study of Scripture. I can absolutely relate to that because I’ve been doing the same thing for the past few years. I don’t know if you took any time to look over the article that I sent to your email but in it I recommend a free program called “Interlinear Scripture Analyzer (ISA)”. It has absolutely revolutionized my efforts to study Scripture in the original languages! If you don’t have it, you can get it here free: http://www.scripture4all.org/.

I’m too old and senile to try and memorize the whole Hebrew alphabet, but I have focused on trying to have some understanding of word structure and rules of grammar in Hebrew in particular coupled with the ISA program and it works for my purposes. I’ve used Davidson’s “Introductory Hebrew Grammar” which hasn’t been terribly useful for me, as well as “Biblical Hebrew Step by Step” volumes 1 and 2 by Menahem Mansoor, which I find to be helpful, particularly the first volume.

Anyway, I look at you in a different and certainly more impressive light because I don’t often run into folks like you and me who have no formal Biblical training but have made the effort that you apparently have to learn a difficult subject in order to better understand and interpret Scripure!!!

As to your last comment, I have to say that sometimes a “formal Biblical education” can actually be an impediment to biblical understanding! I hate to say it, but it is true! More often than not, a formal Biblical education is really an education in man-made traditions. It can be an education in Scripture twisting!

I am currently working on Pimsleur’s Hebrew 1 course. I find I have to review each lesson four times, at least, before I am able to move on the next. (I am on lesson 14 out of 30) Still I find it is a very good course. At present they are focusing on spoken Hebrew, but I really think this might be the best way to learn a new language. First spoken, and then written, once you have mastered the basics of speaking it.

A very interesting read. I too have been led up and down all sorts of strange paths. My weak human reasoning led me to believe that as all the Lord’s disciples were Jews, and the Old Testament was written in the original Hebrew, then maybe there was mileage in the claim that the New Testament may have been inspired/written in the Hebrew language.
We know from Scripture (the same is true today) that Jerusalem is a particularly cosmopolitan city. From memory I believe that there were 15 languages spoken in acts 2, when the Holy Spirit came, this somewhat is a reversal of what happened at Babel in Genesis 11.9? God is the author of language? He is not only the God of the Jews, but the Gentiles too, Romans 3.29.
We only have to read 2 Kings 18.26 to understand that there were times in the OT when the Jews didn’t want to be spoken to in their own language! Also even among their own brethren there were language/pronunciation problems; Judges 12.6.
Having said all this, clearly there are some Spirit led teachers that are correct in saying that though the NT was inspired in the Greek language, there is a very strong Hebrew/Jewish undercurrent in many places. Upon reflection, this would be expected? How could it be otherwise? The Hebrew/Jewish idioms are crying out, even through the Greek! The oracles of God were committed to the Jews; Romans 3.2.
As you well know, are there is much false teaching on the internet and elsewhere; and also with regards to Hebrew roots and the ‘Sacred Name’. Jesus is the Greek name for Joshua; Hebrews 4.8. Many, many, countless many have been saved by the precious name of Jesus. There are some, today that believe we must pronounce His name in a certain way, in order to be saved! The New Testament is replete with doctrine, most notably in the Pauline epistles, which in conjunction with the ‘necessary things’ in Acts 15, clearly teach we don’t have to become Jews in order to be saved.
Some forget that the Bible is God’s revelation to mankind, not just the Jew.
I can empathise with much of what you write. When you say at the beginning of this article that you have found some to be ‘raging heretics’, I would say to you that the abiding Word of God, does indeed teach that it is possible to ‘hold the truth in unrighteousness’. Romans 1.18.
You touch on the subject of ‘Biblical training’, I have none. I came to the revelation about nine years ago, that ‘If God’s Word is true, then, logically nothing else matters’? I can confirm that to be the truth.
May God bless you in your studies.

I would add that sometimes the English doesn’t do the Hebrew justice. While many have been saved calling on the name Jesus, the meaning of the name has been lost in the English. Many of our pastors have let us down by not explaining the relationship between the names Jesus and Yehoshua, or Joshua.

It was many years after I was saved that I discovered that the name Jesus (or Yeshua) is a direct fulfilment of Zechariah 6:11-13. I found this out through personal study, and was disappointed that I had not heard this from any pastor. To be fair, I believe one pastor did say that Jesus is a form of Joshua, but he didn’t provide references, and didn’t point out that this is a fulfilment of the prophecy in Zechariah.

I suspect that widespread knowledge of this prophecy will likely have to wait until the Antichrist shows up, with a different name.

I am currently attending a sabbatarian church, and while I agree that God never changed the Sabbath to Sun-day, I am concerned because of the tendency to go back to the dietary laws. As far as I am concerned, if Peter lived a gentile lifestyle without offending the Lord, then so can I.

On the other hand, if a church wants to aim its ministry toward reaching Jews, then there is no problem in keeping Kosher, just so long as they don’t make it a commandment, or condition of salvation.

Are Greek texts pure word of God. Where is Logia of Jesus in Aramaic. Where is Matthew’s Aramaic gospel?

P46 (175CE) is Greek manuscript with the largest percentage of difference on record. This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will.

Here is the words of the early church father, Origen (3rd century CE):
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Origen, early church father in “Commentary on Matthew.”

Regarding the oldest surviving fragment, Colin Roberts compared P52 writings using ONLY 5 samples from the early 2nd century CE back in 1935 and concluded based on those 5 samples; P52 was from the early 2nd century.

(Brent Nongbri’s 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel)
What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. – Brent

Compare with 4th century codexes. You will be surprise how Holy Spirit inside the scribes fail to prevent them from changing words of God ever since the beginning.

God did not preserve His word in the sands of Egypt, He preserved them by their usage. We have the word of God in the Textus Receptus, and the Hebrew Masoretic Text, complete with vowel points.

These are the texts that the Church has used from the beginning. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus documents, including the Latin Vultate, are completely corrupt! People began corrupting the Word of God almost as soon as it was written, but God did preserve it in its original form which was available to the true Churches, even as it is today.

There are around 6,000 manuscripts that support the TR and the Authorized Version, plus the tens of thousands of early translations. The handful of manuscripts you are pointing to belong to another stream!

The problem is that you don’t want to believe that God preserved his word, and so you won’t read the books that support it!

Infallibility does not mean without variation, or error, it means totally truthful! So what if some scribe spells one word differently, the bible is still totally truthful, and has been available to the people of God since it was written.